Disposed

Rajeev M., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2023Bail Appl./3379/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of an anticipatory bail application by directing the applicant to surrender for interrogation within two weeks and release on bail upon executing a bond, subjecting him to police custody if needed and imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to surrender for interrogation within two weeks; release on bail after interrogation upon execution of bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties; various conditions for appearance, non-contacti

Rajeev M., Vs State of Kerala — Anticipatory Bail | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 29TH ASHADHA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 3379 OF 2023

¶5

CRIME NO.365/2023 OF NARUVAMOODU POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶6

PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

¶7

RAJEEV M.,
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. MOHANAN, MELEMANGOOTTATHIL VEEDU,
EDAKODE, NEMOM .P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN – 695020

¶8

BY ADVS.
J.VISHNU
ANU BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
N.ANAND

¶9

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031

¶11

2THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
NARUVAMOODU POLICE STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, PIN – 695528

¶12

BY ADV
SMT.SEETHA S – SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

BAIL APPL. NO. 3379 OF 2023

¶15

2

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.365/2023 of Naruvamoodu Police Station which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326, 452, 447 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶18

The prosecution case is that on 24.03.2023 at about 9.00

¶19

p. m. due to previous animosity, the accused persons, trespassed into the house of the defacto complainant, attacked him with a steal rod and wooden stick, thereby causing injuries to him. The crime was registered in such circumstances. As the petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with the investigation of the said case this application for anticipatory bail is submitted.

¶20

Heard Sri.Anu Balakrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel

¶21

for the petitioner and Smt.Seetha S., learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of all the allegations and a false case has been registered by the defacto complainant who is none other than

¶23

BAIL APPL. NO. 3379 OF 2023

¶24

3

¶25

brother-in-law of the 1^st accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner further points out that, the wife of the defacto complainant, who is the sister of the 1^st accused, was being subjected to ill-treatment by the defacto complainant on regular basis. According to the learned counsel, the defacto complainant is having several criminal antecedents. The petitioner went to the residence of the defacto complainant, as the wife of the defacto complainant informed the 1^st accused as to the ill-treatment meted out to her. A false compliant was submitted by the defacto complainant in such circumstances as the petitioner questioned the ill-treatment meted out to the wife by the defacto compliant. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and shall abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶26

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the aforesaid application by pointing out that specific overt acts are alleged against the petitioner and also the other accused. The role of the petitioner is to the effect that he attacked the defacto

¶27

BAIL APPL. NO. 3379 OF 2023

¶28

4

¶29

complainant with a wooden stick, thereby causing fracture on his shoulder. The 1^st and 3^rd accused already arrested and were released on bail. The petitioner alone need to be arrested. Dismissal of the application was sought in such circumstances.

¶30

I have gone through the records. It is true that there are certain allegations against the petitioner but, it is evident that the other accused were already arrested and there is substantial progress in the investigation as well. No criminal antecedents of the petitioner were brought to my notice. The petitioner has a specific case that they went to the residence of the defacto complainant as he illtreated his wife who is the sister of the 1^st accused. When all the relevant aspects are taken into consideration, I am of the view that, the limited custody of the petitioner for the purpose of interrogation would serve the ends of justice.

¶31

In such circumstances, this application is disposed of with the following conditions:

¶32

i) The petitioner shall surrender before the Investigating Officer, within a period of two weeks from today, for subjecting

¶33

BAIL APPL. NO. 3379 OF 2023

¶34

5

¶35

himself to interrogation.

¶36

ii) After interrogation, the petitioner shall be released on bail on the very same day of surrender upon the petitioner executing a bond for Rs 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

¶37

iii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the investigation, including subjecting himself to the deemed police custody for the purpose of recovery, if any, as and when demanded.

¶38

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m every Saturday until the filing of the final report.

¶39

v) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.

¶40

vi) The petitioner shall not commit any offence of similar nature while on bail.

¶41

vii) The petitioner shall not make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person,

¶42

¶43

BAIL APPL. NO. 3379 OF 2023

¶44

or in any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses or other persons related to the investigation.

¶45

viii) The petitioner shall not leave India without the permission of the Jurisdictional Court.

¶46

In case of violation of any of the above conditions, the jurisdictional Court shall be empowered to consider the application

¶47

for cancellation of bail, if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

¶48

Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶49

scs

Rajeev M., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev M., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Shaijuroshan U.V Vs State of Kerala

Manu Mohan Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Borah Vs State of Kerala

Sooraj J Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor

Sooraj J Vs State of Kerala Represented by the Public Prosecutor